Samsung Galaxy Devices Get Important Security Clearance | PCWorld Business Center (Angela West)

Samsung has just received Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) approval for the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Wi-Fi, the 4G LTE-enabled Galaxy Tab 10.1 with Verizon, and the global version of the Galaxy S II smartphone.

FIPS is a U.S. government standard certified through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The standard treats a certified device or application as a cryptographic module, and a FIPS certification means the modules meet strict security and interoperability standards. FIPS certification is required for many branches of the government and its contractors, as well as for private industries that collect and transmit Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information.

“Samsung proactively sought FIPS certification to show our current and potential government and business customers that we take their security and interoperability needs seriously,” said Cho BumCoo, a Samsung vice president, in a statement.

via Samsung Galaxy Devices Get Important Security Clearance | PCWorld Business Center.

FTC clears Epiq’s planned purchase of De Novo Legal – Kansas City Business Journal (Alyson Raletz)

The Federal Trade Commission    gave Kansas City, Kan.-based Epiq Systems Inc. the go-ahead to purchase a New York-based electronic legal services provider.

The FTC announced on Tuesday that it had provided Epiq (NASDAQ: EPIQ) early clearance of antitrust concerns to buy De Novo Legal LLC.

Epiq, a software company that supports the legal profession in electronic discovery and document review services, ranked 20th on the Kansas City Business Journal’s list of area public companies, based on revenue of $247.17 million in 2010.

Representatives of Epiq and De Novo could not be reached immediately for comment. A De Novo employee declined to answer questions about company details, including a current employee count, saying that there had been recent changes.

via FTC clears Epiq’s planned purchase of De Novo Legal – Kansas City Business Journal.

How to Keep Your Company Off of the Government’s Naughty List | Corporate Counsel (Ryan McConnell & Katelyn Richardson)

The holiday season is here. The 2010 U.K. Bribery Act is on the books. And enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is on the rise. Gift baskets began arriving in the corporate mailroom weeks ago. But holiday gifts can raise conflict of interest issues and may be viewed as bribery depending upon the intent of the giver and value of the gift. Recent bribery cases against companies involving gifts include Alcatel-Lucent, RAE Systems, and Innospec. In-house counsel should ensure their corporate gift policy protects the company from government scrutiny.

Gifts can be particularly problematic for antibribery compliance programs. Thirty-eight countries have adopted the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Antibribery Convention and enacted laws against foreign bribery. Both the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act prohibit gifts intended to influence decisions to award business or gain an improper benefit from foreign political or government officials, including employees of state-controlled entities. The U.K. Bribery Act and the U.S. Travel Act both outlaw commercial bribery involving gifts intended to influence business decisions.

via How to Keep Your Company Off of the Government’s Naughty List.

E-Discovery: What Businesses Should Know | The Small Business Authority

Remember the Enron email scandal? As part of a federal investigation into the fraudulent activities going on at Enron in the early part of this century, hundreds of emails were released to the court and eventually to the public. ABC News1 reported that many of these emails “could prove to be embarrassing,” not only for Enron but also for employees whose names were attached to the personal emails they’d sent that were now being revealed to the world. The gathering of these emails was an example of e-discovery, a trend that companies and individuals will continue to face as part of the digital era.

What is E-Discovery?

E-discovery is a broad term used to describe any situation in which electronic data, such as email or internet postings, are sought in a criminal or civil case. The discovery process allows plaintiffs and defendants to exchange information during pretrial preparation, and the court will actually compel information to be turned over if it’s relevant or “probative” to the case.

In days past, discovery was limited to phone records, paper documents, and the like, since those were all that existed. Records were available only of the things people had chosen to write down, and the extensive amounts of paperwork turned over in cases were cumbersome to go through.

Today, however, e-discovery is changing the game. According to figures compiled in a recent Law.com2 article, Twitter users send more than 200 million status updates every day, and people on the internet send 13,800,000 messages every single hour. All these tweets and emails and instant messages and Facebook posts and chats that are flying around cyberspace create a written record of things that might otherwise have been discussed over the phone or in person. Because the records are digital, all of the data and information are stored somewhere and rarely eliminated, no matter how hard you try to get rid of the data. Further, the digital format makes it easy to sort through data quickly to find relevant information.

These online communications are generally not privileged except in certain unusual and limited circumstances. This means that all of these records can be accessed as part of e-discovery, and they can have a significant impact on litigation by providing evidence of things that otherwise might have been unprovable. For example, according to USA Today,3 the twins who sued Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued that evidence existed in instant messages that would prove that Zuckerberg had stolen the idea for Facebook from their own website plan. Although a judge dismissed the twins’ suits, it’s easy to imagine a case in which a message sent and forgotten many years ago could be uncovered and used in litigation.

via E-Discovery: What Businesses Should Know | The Small Business Authority | Small Business Services and Small Business Solutions.

Regulators to cooperate on cross-border compliance concerns | Thomson Reuters

(Business Law Currents) The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate the exchange of regulatory information and investigative assistance with respect to regulated entities that operate across the U.S.-Canadian border.

FINRA was formed in 2007 from the consolidation of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and member regulation, enforcement and arbitration operations of the New York Stock Exchange. It is the largest non-governmental regulatory organization for securities brokers and dealers doing business in the United States. The MOU joins others maintained by the OSC with regulators such as the SEC and the China Securities Regulatory Commission.

The deal is expected to enhance the ability of both regulators to oversee securities firms and markets. The arrangement will facilitate the exchange of information on firms and individuals under common supervision and support collaboration on investigations and enforcement matters.

via Regulators to cooperate on cross-border compliance concerns.

Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | National Law Journal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to lessen the financial burden on U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries. That burden has cost U.S. companies upwards of a trillion dollars and has made our nation less competitive in the world marketplace. Unfortunately, the most important amendment suggested by the Chamber is likely to make the problem worse. There is a better and simpler solution.

The FCPA is our nation’s effort to prevent companies from bribing government officials to secure business in a foreign country. Companies found guilty of paying bribes, or of failing to accurately describe the bribes in their financial records, have had to pay billions of dollars in fines and have faced the possibility of debarment from government contracts. Why so much money? Under U.S. law, companies are responsible for the acts of their employees even if management is unaware of the employee’s conduct. A typical scenario involves a company executive hiring a foreign consultant to help negotiate a contract with a particular ministry for the sale of a product or service. Unknown to management, the consultant’s fee includes a bribe to a foreign official.

Although intended to level the playing field, the FCPA has actually made it harder for U.S. companies to compete in the marketplace. Money that a company could have used to hire employees, build plants and market its products has been diverted to efforts to show that any illegal conduct was the act of a rogue employee.

If the bribe is uncovered, the company has no defense to criminal liability. Even though the bribe was not authorized by management, no one in management was aware of the bribe and the bribe was specifically against company policy, the company is criminally responsible. The only thing the company can do is try to convince the government not to charge it with a crime.

How does a company do this? Primarily by showing the U.S. Department of Justice that the company had a compliance program designed to prevent such conduct. Companies must evaluate their business environment to identify areas where unlawful conduct might occur. Such an evaluation must include an examination of the business culture of the foreign nation and even a boots-on-the-ground investigation of the company’s foreign partners or intermediaries. Companies must promulgate policies that detail permitted and prohibited practices, and employees must receive regular training on permitted practices and the penalty for noncompliance.

via Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Cybersecurity Disclosures: The SEC Wants Them and Wants Them Now

(Business Law Currents) Cyber risk poses enormous questions and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wants answers. On October 13, 2011, the SEC’s Corporation Finance Division (the Division) provided guidance to public companies for disclosures on cybersecurity. While the guidelines are non-binding and the Commission itself has neither approved nor disapproved them, they guidance does paint a fuller picture of what kind of risks companies should (and need not) be disclosing.

The guidance allows that cyber risk is uncharted territory.1 “Although no existing disclosure requirement explicitly refers to cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents,” explains the Division, “a number of disclosure requirements may impose an obligation on registrants to disclose such risks and incidents. In addition, material information regarding cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents is required to be disclosed when necessary in order to make other required disclosures, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading.”2

Gauging what degree of risk rises to the level of materiality not unsurprisingly remains a judgment call. The Division suggests prior cyber incidents, their severity, their “quantitative and qualitative magnitude,” and the possible costs and consequences as factors underlying proper evaluation.3 Still, the risks should be identifiable and not descend into yet another element of boilerplate disclosure.4

The Division has proposed non-exhaustive examples of the kinds of cyber risks and incidents appropriate for disclosure. These topics include:

Discussion of aspects of the registrant’s business or operations that give rise to material cybersecurity risks and the potential costs and consequences;

To the extent the registrant outsources functions that have material cybersecurity risks, description of those functions and how the registrant addresses those risks;

Description of cyber incidents experienced by the registrant that are individually, or in the aggregate, material, including a description of the costs and other consequences;

Risks related to cyber incidents that may remain undetected for an extended period; and

Description of relevant insurance coverage.

via Cybersecurity Disclosures: The SEC Wants Them and Wants Them Now.

Visit Global EDD Group and Litigation Edge on Google+ Pages

Global EDD Group and Litigation Edge are proud to announce their new Google+ Pages, the newest social media resource that focuses on building relationships between businesses and people.  Please visit these pages and add us to your circles!

Global EDD Group Google+ Page:  https://plus.google.com/112528171458676375897

Litigation Edge Google+ Page:  https://plus.google.com/112326062359416843938

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Employee Theft Investigations: Intellectually Property Theft and Business Trade Secrets Investigations | Computer Forensics Associates

Intellectual property theft and trade secret theft often go unnoticed until an employee is terminated. Suddenly a competitor introduces a new product or process that is virtually identical to yours. By performing a computer forensic investigation on any electronic devices the employee had access to, sufficient evidence can be found to prove theft of intellectual business property and and business trade secrets. This evidence can be used in court to stop the competitor’s use, prosecute the responsible party(s) and win compensatory damages.

Computer Forensic investigations help businesses uncover suspected intellectual property theft, trade secret theft and patent infringement by investigating computers, smart phones, cell phones, hard drives, servers and other data storage devices. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets including but not limited to intangible assets like musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.

Take these steps if you suspect theft of intellectual property by an employee:

  1. Identify all computers, laptops, smart phones,and external devices that may hold potential evidence.
  2. Secure the suspect computers and prevent further use until a forensic image can be collected.
  3. Begin documenting why you suspect IP theft, fraud or patent infringement.
  4. Contact a computer forensics company like Computer Forensics Associates and make arrangements to capture a forensically sound image so you preserve the evidence and prevent tampering or spoliation.

via Employee Theft Investigations: Intellectually Property Theft and Business Trade Secrets Investigations.